It's a gerrymander. It combines MN-03 with Carver County and McLeod County which it has no reason to be combined with and splits Walz's base by removing Nicollet. Nicollet and McLeod are not metro counties and have no place in a metro district. And Nicollet has no place being separated from Blue Earth.

Calling it a "gerrymander" doesn't make it a gerrymander.

Words have meaning, and the meaning of "gerrymander" is simply not "taking line choices that I don't like."

Here is a little reality for you: the metro population is not exactly five districts, so some of those districts must include areas outside the metro. That simply isn't "gerrymandering."

It's gerrymandering because:

It seeks to make Chip Cravaack's district safe by taking out Duluth and the Iron Range.

It seeks to make Colin Peterson, who is a very conservative Democrat, the representative from the liberal northeastern part of the state.

It weaken's Tim Walz's standing by adding more Republican areas to his district while removing Democratic ones.

It makes Paulsen's district safer for him by include very conservative areas, thus turning it from a swing district into a safe R district, and keeps both 2 and 6 nice and Republican.

It doesn't have to look like a gerrymander to be a gerrymander, Bigskybob... and drop the attitude. kthx

Logged

"Above and beyond the question of how to grow the economy there is a legitimate concern about how to grow the quality of our lives."-Paul Wellstone

"The message was that you are so well trained to believe what you see... That you believed what you saw."

It seeks to make Chip Cravaack's district safe by taking out Duluth and the Iron Range.

It seeks to make Colin Peterson, who is a very conservative Democrat, the representative from the liberal northeastern part of the state.

Not only that, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Peterson would be primaried by a liberal Duluth-area Democrat. The Republicans are obviously banking on a divisive primary so they can pull off another Cravaack-style upset.

Quote

It weaken's Tim Walz's standing by adding more Republican areas to his district while removing Democratic ones.

Not only that, but as BRTD said, it removes much of Walz's home base by splitting North Mankato from Mankato. I'll take his word for what that area is like, since he actually lived there.

Quote

It makes Paulsen's district safer for him by include very conservative areas, thus turning it from a swing district into a safe R district, and keeps both 2 and 6 nice and Republican.

Not only that, but it does this by expanding into rural McLeod County, which has no community of interest with the Minneapolis suburbs. Why not expand into Wright or Anoka instead?

Furthermore, I'd bet my right nut that the western part of this plan's 7th district has more in common with Detroit Lakes and Bemidji than with Cambridge and Lindstrom. Granted, Cambridge and Lindstrom have little in common with Duluth either, except for the fact that they've shared a congressional district since the 1960's. History clearly favors a map where the upstate districts stretch north to south.

It's a gerrymander. It combines MN-03 with Carver County and McLeod County which it has no reason to be combined with and splits Walz's base by removing Nicollet. Nicollet and McLeod are not metro counties and have no place in a metro district. And Nicollet has no place being separated from Blue Earth.

Calling it a "gerrymander" doesn't make it a gerrymander.

Words have meaning, and the meaning of "gerrymander" is simply not "taking line choices that I don't like."

Here is a little reality for you: the metro population is not exactly five districts, so some of those districts must include areas outside the metro. That simply isn't "gerrymandering."

It's gerrymandering because:

It seeks to make Chip Cravaack's district safe by taking out Duluth and the Iron Range.

It seeks to make Colin Peterson, who is a very conservative Democrat, the representative from the liberal northeastern part of the state.

It weaken's Tim Walz's standing by adding more Republican areas to his district while removing Democratic ones.

It makes Paulsen's district safer for him by include very conservative areas, thus turning it from a swing district into a safe R district, and keeps both 2 and 6 nice and Republican.

It doesn't have to look like a gerrymander to be a gerrymander, Bigskybob... and drop the attitude. kthx

Again, there were population shifts within the state that called for adjustments. Inner city, inner suburban and rural areas did not grow as fast as the outer suburban areas. One, or more, of the three inner districts had to expand outward. Whomever's district that expanded outward was likely to add Republicans to their district.

Where do you get off claiming the right to declare it "gerrymandering" if it was the suburban Republican whom expanded into the exurbs, rather than one, or both of the innercity Democrats?

In the last redistricting, the Demcrats bitched and moaned that it was unfair for there to be four out-state anchored districts, and four metro-based districts when the metro was 58% of the state. The courts agreed, and restructured the state's districts. Republican Representatives in Southern Minnesota were harmed. That was a result that I did not personally like, but, I don't abuse the English language to declare it a "judicial gerrymander."

P.S. Peterson may very well be a "very conservative Democrat," whatever that means, but, Dan Boren is, probably, the only Demcrat in the House of Representatives whom is properly considered " conservative." Even then, I don't think Boren qualifies as "very conservative."

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.

It is when it's obviously done just to shore up the closest Republican held seat (MN-03) or carve out the base of of a Dem incumbent (which is blatantly what the separation of Nicollet and Blue Earth is.)

Have you ever been to the Mandate area? I lived there for five years. Mandate (Blue Earth) and North Mandate (Nicollet) are so closely linked that they don't even have separate "now entering" signs, the city limits for both just says both Mandate and North Mandate. There is no reason to separate it besides splitting a Democratic incumbent's home.

This is one of the lamest claims to gerrymandering I have ever read. Cities are divided all the time in redistricting. That isn't "gerrymandering." To claim that splitting neighboring cities from each other constitutes "gerrymandering" take that absurdity one step further. Wait! Counties are split! That must be "gerrymandering." Hell! Neighboring counties are split from each other as well. That too must be "gerrymandering."

Every line choice you don't like isn't "gerrymandering."

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.

Dude, no one is complaining about the map being shifted to reflect population adjustments. It's about how those adjustments are done. There is no reason to push MN-03 out to McLeod County. It can be easily kept within the metro to meet ideal population. I have a feeling that if McLeod was a Democratic county like Rice it probably wouldn't have been included.

Splitting Nicollet is a gerrymander because there is simply no other reason to do so. No one can seriously argue it has more in common with the southern exurbs, or that Mankato and southeast Minnesota have more in common with those remote western counties that it's pushed up to. It's pretty obvious why this is done, Nicollet isn't that Democratic of a county but is part of Walz's solid base. He won it by almost 20 points in 2010 despite winning by only 5 points district-wide. And the numbers Walz racked up in some of those precincts in it in 2006 and 2008 look like they belong in the inner Twin Cities. Do you seriously believe the Republicans didn't take this into account at all in removing it? It's certainly not impossible to keep in the district when drawing a map, actually it's more difficult to get a logical district with it removed (not that that district is logical.)

In the last redistricting, the Demcrats bitched and moaned that it was unfair for there to be four out-state anchored districts, and four metro-based districts when the metro was 58% of the state. The courts agreed, and restructured the state's districts. Republican Representatives in Southern Minnesota were harmed.

No Republicans were harmed by the 2000 redistricting. Kennedy got an almost completely new district that he won in and would've continued to hold had he not been a complete idiot who thought he could win a Senate seat. Gutknecht's district got about two points more Republican. He lost in 2006 because it was still a swing district, it was a horrible year for Republicans and he got detached and unpopular in the district, not because it was drawn anymore significantly Democratic. Just look at a map, it lost Democratic Rice County and some marginal swing counties for some heavily Republican counties out west. Gore lost the most Democratic county added to the district by almost 6 points.

Not only that, but it does this by expanding into rural McLeod County, which has no community of interest with the Minneapolis suburbs. Why not expand into Wright or Anoka instead?

Yet again, the metro area include 58%, not 62.5% in the previous census. To create a fifth metro seat the courts expanded the 2nd district to the South, and the 6th district to the Northwest. While the metro share has increased, it hasn't increased to 62.5% of the state. One, or more, metro districts had to expand outstate. That is a mathematical fact. You cannot justly claim a metro/out-state cross to be sinister because it is inevitable.

The Republican map, basically, improved on the metro/rural split by making the sixth district a purely metro seat, and concentrating all the rural areas paired with the metro into the second. There is nothing inherently unfair, unjust or sinister about such a choice.

To answer your question, to expand the third into either Anoka, or Wright counties would require that the sixth expand into rural areas, or wrap around into Dakota county. This is contrary to their goal of making the sixth a metro seat.

Again, you can't just dismiss redistricting choices you don't like as being "gerrymandering."

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.

In the last redistricting, the Demcrats bitched and moaned that it was unfair for there to be four out-state anchored districts, and four metro-based districts when the metro was 58% of the state. The courts agreed, and restructured the state's districts. Republican Representatives in Southern Minnesota were harmed.

No Republicans were harmed by the 2000 redistricting. Kennedy got an almost completely new district that he won in and would've continued to hold had he not been a complete idiot who thought he could win a Senate seat. Gutknecht's district got about two points more Republican. He lost in 2006 because it was still a swing district, it was a horrible year for Republicans and he got detached and unpopular in the district, not because it was drawn anymore significantly Democratic. Just look at a map, it lost Democratic Rice County and some marginal swing counties for some heavily Republican counties out west. Gore lost the most Democratic county added to the district by almost 6 points.

Exactly. If anyone was harmed by the 2000 redistricting, it was Democrat Bill Luther, whose eastern suburban district was basically split in half and had heavily Republican exurbs added to each half. Those two districts are represented today by Michele Bachmann and John Kline.

Not only that, but it does this by expanding into rural McLeod County, which has no community of interest with the Minneapolis suburbs. Why not expand into Wright or Anoka instead?

Yet again, the metro area include 58%, not 62.5% in the previous census. To create a fifth metro seat the courts expanded the 2nd district to the South, and the 6th district to the Northwest. While the metro share has increased, it hasn't increased to 62.5% of the state. One, or more, metro districts had to expand outstate. That is a mathematical fact. You cannot justly claim a metro/out-state cross to be sinister because it is inevitable.

The Republican map, basically, improved on the metro/rural split by making the sixth district a purely metro seat, and concentrating all the rural areas paired with the metro into the second. There is nothing inherently unfair, unjust or sinister about such a choice.

To answer your question, to expand the third into either Anoka, or Wright counties would require that the sixth expand into rural areas, or wrap around into Dakota county. This is contrary to their goal of making the sixth a metro seat.

Again, you can't just dismiss redistricting choices you don't like as being "gerrymandering."

The trade-off for making the Sixth a "purely metro" seat was to expand the Third into rural McLeod County. As you said, either way, one of the districts has to expand out of the metro. So why should it be the Third (which is currently an inner-ring suburban district) rather than the Sixth (which already includes rural areas)?

Regardless, the Third won't be won by a Democrat except under special circumstances anyway, and that is hardly the most egregiously gerrymandered part of the map. That dubious honor goes to the upstate area.

Dude, no one is complaining about the map being shifted to reflect population adjustments. It's about how those adjustments are done. There is no reason to push MN-03 out to McLeod County. It can be easily kept within the metro to meet ideal population.

Only by pushing other districts out in McLeod or some other rural county. The Metro simply isn't 62.5% of the state. Choices to cross into rural areas had to be made. One the whole, this map concentrates those crossing into the second district much more than the previous lines.

Quote

I have a feeling that if McLeod was a Democratic county like Rice it probably wouldn't have been included.

Splitting Nicollet is a gerrymander because there is simply no other reason to do so.

But, there was at least two "reasons." First, it was entirely proper to concentrate all the rural areas attached to the metro into one district. It was on the border of the second, and the second expanded into rural areas. Some counties had to be added. The second reason is population equality.

Quote

No one can seriously argue it has more in common with the southern exurbs, or that Mankato and southeast Minnesota have more in common with those remote western counties that it's pushed up to.

I have no doubt that it would be obvious that folks would be happiest if exactly 62.5% of the state was in the metro. Since it isn't, it is obvious that some rural folks are going to have to accept being placed into a metro-based district. Concentrating those rural folks in one district, instead of splitting them in half, to me, gives them a greater voice.

That is a choice I like and you don't like. Where is the "gerrymandering?"

Choices had to be made. The folks in Minnesota elected Republican to make those choices, and their plan reflects their interests more than yours. That democracy in action. Live with it.

Quote

It's pretty obvious why this is done, Nicollet isn't that Democratic of a county but is part of Walz's solid base. He won it by almost 20 points in 2010 despite winning by only 5 points district-wide. And the numbers Walz racked up in some of those precincts in it in 2006 and 2008 look like they belong in the inner Twin Cities. Do you seriously believe the Republicans didn't take this into account at all in removing it? It's certainly not impossible to keep in the district when drawing a map, actually it's more difficult to get a logical district with it removed (not that that district is logical.)

In the last redistricting, the Democrats bitched and moaned that it was unfair for there to be four out-state anchored districts, and four metro-based districts when the metro was 58% of the state. The courts agreed, and restructured the state's districts. Republican Representatives in Southern Minnesota were harmed.

No Republicans were harmed by the 2000 redistricting. Kennedy got an almost completely new district that he won in and would've continued to hold had he not been a complete idiot who thought he could win a Senate seat.

Having a nearly new district is disadvantageous. Your argument is akin to claiming, "While we did shoot at him, we missed, so it wasn't attempted murder."

Quote

Gutknecht's district got about two points more Republican. He lost in 2006 because it was still a swing district, it was a horrible year for Republicans and he got detached and unpopular in the district, not because it was drawn anymore significantly Democratic. Just look at a map, it lost Democratic Rice County and some marginal swing counties for some heavily Republican counties out west. Gore lost the most Democratic county added to the district by almost 6 points.

There were three South Minnesota seats. Why are you only mentioning two?

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.

Not only that, but it does this by expanding into rural McLeod County, which has no community of interest with the Minneapolis suburbs. Why not expand into Wright or Anoka instead?

Yet again, the metro area include 58%, not 62.5% in the previous census. To create a fifth metro seat the courts expanded the 2nd district to the South, and the 6th district to the Northwest. While the metro share has increased, it hasn't increased to 62.5% of the state. One, or more, metro districts had to expand outstate. That is a mathematical fact. You cannot justly claim a metro/out-state cross to be sinister because it is inevitable.

The Republican map, basically, improved on the metro/rural split by making the sixth district a purely metro seat, and concentrating all the rural areas paired with the metro into the second. There is nothing inherently unfair, unjust or sinister about such a choice.

To answer your question, to expand the third into either Anoka, or Wright counties would require that the sixth expand into rural areas, or wrap around into Dakota county. This is contrary to their goal of making the sixth a metro seat.

Again, you can't just dismiss redistricting choices you don't like as being "gerrymandering."

The trade-off for making the Sixth a "purely metro" seat was to expand the Third into rural McLeod County. As you said, either way, one of the districts has to expand out of the metro. So why should it be the Third (which is currently an inner-ring suburban district) rather than the Sixth (which already includes rural areas)?

Again, it is for reasons I have already stated. Rural folks attached to metro districts were concentrated into the Second. If McLeod really is rural, rather than exurban, then you are merely making the perfect the enemy of the good. Two districts with significant rural areas are shifted to one district with significant rural areas, and another with slight rural areas.

Quote

Regardless, the Third won't be won by a Democrat except under special circumstances anyway, and that is hardly the most egregiously gerrymandered part of the map. That dubious honor goes to the upstate area.

First, if it doesn't matter, why did you claim it as proof of "gerrymandering?"

Second, the Northern split is completely fair. You don't like the fact that it is a restructuring of districts, but, then again, so was the last court map.

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.

Dude, no one is complaining about the map being shifted to reflect population adjustments. It's about how those adjustments are done. There is no reason to push MN-03 out to McLeod County. It can be easily kept within the metro to meet ideal population.

Only by pushing other districts out in McLeod or some other rural county. The Metro simply isn't 62.5% of the state. Choices to cross into rural areas had to be made.

Yes, and it can be limited to two districts like the current map. Not three like here.

I have a feeling that if McLeod was a Democratic county like Rice it probably wouldn't have been included.

Splitting Nicollet is a gerrymander because there is simply no other reason to do so.

But, there was at least two "reasons." First, it was entirely proper to concentrate all the rural areas attached to the metro into one district. It was on the border of the second, and the second expanded into rural areas. Some counties had to be added. The second reason is population equality.

But it doesn't do that. McLeod and southern Stearns aren't in the second. And Nicollet wouldn't work if Carver wasn't removed to shore up the third.

No one can seriously argue it has more in common with the southern exurbs, or that Mankato and southeast Minnesota have more in common with those remote western counties that it's pushed up to.

I have no doubt that it would be obvious that folks would be happiest if exactly 62.5% of the state was in the metro. Since it isn't, it is obvious that some rural folks are going to have to accept being placed into a metro-based district. Concentrating those rural folks in one district, instead of splitting them in half, to me, gives them a greater voice.

Nicollet isn't a rural county, it's a core part of metro Mankato. This split is for no reason beyond partisan ones.

It's pretty obvious why this is done, Nicollet isn't that Democratic of a county but is part of Walz's solid base. He won it by almost 20 points in 2010 despite winning by only 5 points district-wide. And the numbers Walz racked up in some of those precincts in it in 2006 and 2008 look like they belong in the inner Twin Cities. Do you seriously believe the Republicans didn't take this into account at all in removing it? It's certainly not impossible to keep in the district when drawing a map, actually it's more difficult to get a logical district with it removed (not that that district is logical.)

In the last redistricting, the Democrats bitched and moaned that it was unfair for there to be four out-state anchored districts, and four metro-based districts when the metro was 58% of the state. The courts agreed, and restructured the state's districts. Republican Representatives in Southern Minnesota were harmed.

No Republicans were harmed by the 2000 redistricting. Kennedy got an almost completely new district that he won in and would've continued to hold had he not been a complete idiot who thought he could win a Senate seat.

Having a nearly new district is disadvantageous. Your argument is akin to claiming, "While we did shoot at him, we missed, so it wasn't attempted murder."

So the court specifically drew the map to target Gutknecht? Then why remove Rice? The western counties voted for him solidly. He wasn't harmed by the new district, it just wasn't enough help.

Gutknecht's district got about two points more Republican. He lost in 2006 because it was still a swing district, it was a horrible year for Republicans and he got detached and unpopular in the district, not because it was drawn anymore significantly Democratic. Just look at a map, it lost Democratic Rice County and some marginal swing counties for some heavily Republican counties out west. Gore lost the most Democratic county added to the district by almost 6 points.

There were three South Minnesota seats. Why are you only mentioning two?

Another blatant lie. There were not three southern Minnesota seats in the 90s map.

I have no doubt that partisan gerrymandering in your favor seems "reasonable" to you. Nor do I doubt that partisan gerrymander in your favor seem "fair" to you. Nor, do I doubt that partisan gerrymandering in your favor seems "objective" to you.

You have expanded a Charlotte surburban district way east to Moore county just to avoid including Northern suburbs that would result in the Northern areas including Winston-Salem. A person using objective redistricting criteria would never include such a finger. It is a partisan results-driven exercise.

Likewise, having a district wrap around Greensboro is partisan-driven gerrymandering. Why objectivity demands pairing Winston-Salem and part of Greensboro in the Triad rather than Winston-Salem, Davidson County and Highpoint [Where you can pair two whole counties] is an exercise in rationalization at best, and an absurdity at worse.

In the East we see the same gerrymandering passed off as objectivity. Instead of creating a coastal district that expands inland, or a Southern tier district, you try to create a Southern tier district that excludes the Republican areas along the tier, but expands Northward to find Democrats, and a coastal district that won't expand to the next county in the South, but, expands way to the West in its Northern reaches.

First, if it doesn't matter, why did you claim it as proof of "gerrymandering?"

Tell the 30,000+ residents of rural McLeod County who would be stuck in a Hennepin County district that it "doesn't matter". There is no reason whatsoever to extend an inner-ring suburban district that far west. The Sixth can easily pick up the rural areas needed to balance the population between metro and rural districts, and doing so would be less controversial since the Sixth already contains rural areas anyway.

Quote

Second, the Northern split is completely fair. You don't like the fact that it is a restructuring of districts, but, then again, so was the last court map.

I don't like the fact that it splits the community of interest that is northwestern Minnesota, dividing it among districts dominated by areas it has nothing in common with, for purely partisan reasons. This map seeks to deny northwestern Minnesota any representation in Congress. The current configuration preserves the community of interest. Fergus Falls does not belong with Lindstrom, and Moorhead does not belong with Duluth.

First, if it doesn't matter, why did you claim it as proof of "gerrymandering?"

Tell the 30,000+ residents of rural McLeod County who would be stuck in a Hennepin County district that it "doesn't matter". There is no reason whatsoever to extend an inner-ring suburban district that far west. The Sixth can easily pick up the rural areas needed to balance the population between metro and rural districts, and doing so would be less controversial since the Sixth already contains rural areas anyway.

Again, you spin a circular web of sophistry. Of course, all the rural counties combined with a metro district could be concentrated in the Sixth. It is equally true that they can be concentrated in the Second. And, it is equally true that they could be split. That is just a redistricting choice. Claiming one choice that doesn't favor you is "gerrymandering" while the choice that does favor you is not, is simply hypocritical nonsense.

It just so happens that the non-metro areas to the North of the Metro are more Republican than the non-metro areas to the South. The effect of expanding the sixth is the removal of Republicans from the non-metro districts. The effect of expanding south is removing fewer Republicans from the non-metro areas. To argue that because a redistricting in your favor can be done, it should be done is purely circular.

Of course, removing non-metro Republicans from the outstates districts will draw less of an ire from partisan Democrats. Sure, the Republicans could avoid "controversy" by taking a meek, submissive attitude towards partisan Democrats. The Republicans in the legislature could have gone to DKE website and voted for the "7-1 Democratic gerrymander." If they did, the Democrats wouldn't have bitched and moaned about the map. Of course, they would have screwed themselves. The Republicans in the legislature took the decision to take decisions that favored them, and not the Democrats. Certainly, Democrats aren't going to like the decisions taken, just as Republicans wouldn't have liked some of the decision Democrats would have taken. Claiming any choice taken by Republicans that disfavoring you constitutes "gerrymandering" is just injecting aggressive incivility into political discourse.

No matter how many time reassert it, the reality is that there are valid reasons for expanding into Carver county: it is on the boundary between the Sixth and Second. Adding McLeod brings the Third up to population. Given the goal of concentrating out-state areas in the Second, the logical expansion for the Third is into the Second, and the logical county is the border county of Carver.

Quote

Quote

Second, the Northern split is completely fair. You don't like the fact that it is a restructuring of districts, but, then again, so was the last court map.

I don't like the fact that it splits the community of interest that is northwestern Minnesota, dividing it among districts dominated by areas it has nothing in common with, for purely partisan reasons.

Sure, I have no doubt you don't like the map. What you don't have is any valid reason to label it "gerrymandering."

The reality remains that upstate can be divided either North and South or East and West. The first option favors the Republicans, so they took it. That doesn't make it "gerrymandering."

Quote

This map seeks to deny northwestern Minnesota any representation in Congress.

"One man, one vote" means every region, area, county, city, etc., etc., has exactly the representation to which it is entitled.

Quote

The current configuration preserves the community of interest. Fergus Falls does not belong with Lindstrom, and Moorhead does not belong with Duluth.

In every conceivable maps there are pairs that don't make particular sense. In general, a county is apt to be more likely to be similar to a bordering county than a county farther away. But, lines must be drawn, even if it splits such pairs.

You have a bitch. You don't have a case for arguing "gerrymandering."

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.

First, if it doesn't matter, why did you claim it as proof of "gerrymandering?"

Tell the 30,000+ residents of rural McLeod County who would be stuck in a Hennepin County district that it "doesn't matter". There is no reason whatsoever to extend an inner-ring suburban district that far west. The Sixth can easily pick up the rural areas needed to balance the population between metro and rural districts, and doing so would be less controversial since the Sixth already contains rural areas anyway.

Again, you spin a circular web of sophistry. Of course, all the rural counties combined with a metro district could be concentrated in the Sixth. It is equally true that they can be concentrated in the Second. And, it is equally true that they could be split. That is just a redistricting choice. Claiming one choice that doesn't favor you is "gerrymandering" while the choice that does favor you is not, is simply hypocritical nonsense.

It just so happens that the non-metro areas to the North of the Metro are more Republican than the non-metro areas to the South. The effect of expanding the sixth is the removal of Republicans from the non-metro districts. The effect of expanding south is removing fewer Republicans from the non-metro areas. To argue that because a redistricting in your favor can be done, it should be done is purely circular.

Of course, removing non-metro Republicans from the outstates districts will draw less of an ire from partisan Democrats. Sure, the Republicans could avoid "controversy" by taking a meek, submissive attitude towards partisan Democrats. The Republicans in the legislature could have gone to DKE website and voted for the "7-1 Democratic gerrymander." If they did, the Democrats wouldn't have bitched and moaned about the map. Of course, they would have screwed themselves. The Republicans in the legislature took the decision to take decisions that favored them, and not the Democrats. Certainly, Democrats aren't going to like the decisions taken, just as Republicans wouldn't have liked some of the decision Democrats would have taken. Claiming any choice taken by Republicans that disfavoring you constitutes "gerrymandering" is just injecting aggressive incivility into political discourse.

No matter how many time reassert it, the reality is that there are valid reasons for expanding into Carver county: it is on the boundary between the Sixth and Second. Adding McLeod brings the Third up to population. Given the goal of concentrating out-state areas in the Second, the logical expansion for the Third is into the Second, and the logical county is the border county of Carver.

Quote

Quote

Second, the Northern split is completely fair. You don't like the fact that it is a restructuring of districts, but, then again, so was the last court map.

I don't like the fact that it splits the community of interest that is northwestern Minnesota, dividing it among districts dominated by areas it has nothing in common with, for purely partisan reasons.

Sure, I have no doubt you don't like the map. What you don't have is any valid reason to label it "gerrymandering."

The reality remains that upstate can be divided either North and South or East and West. The first option favors the Republicans, so they took it. That doesn't make it "gerrymandering."

Quote

This map seeks to deny northwestern Minnesota any representation in Congress.

"One man, one vote" means every region, area, county, city, etc., etc., has exactly the representation to which it is entitled.

Quote

The current configuration preserves the community of interest. Fergus Falls does not belong with Lindstrom, and Moorhead does not belong with Duluth.

In every conceivable maps there are pairs that don't make particular sense. In general, a county is apt to be more likely to be similar to a bordering county than a county farther away. But, lines must be drawn, even if it splits such pairs.

You have a bitch. You don't have a case for arguing "gerrymandering."

A sensible, fair map would preserve communities of interest. This map splits them for purely partisan reasons. You can't deny that, and you haven't even tried to. That is the very definition of gerrymandering, pure and simple.

Bigsky, you clearly don't understand the geography or the economy of Minnesota. All we're pointing out is that while yes, any map will have various communities that aren't perfect together in the same district... this map goes out of its way to put communities that have nothing in common together for the purpose of aiding Republicans, however subtle that might be. (Again, just cuz the districts aren't shaped like a spider web doesn't mean there isn't subtle gerrymandering going on).

If there are to be 3 wholly rural districts in Minnesota... one should focus on southern Minnesota, another on agricultural areas of western MN, and another on the mining/forestry regions of northeastern MN.

I don't mind district 8 spreading west and engulfing Bemidji because Bemidji is not a farm-town. It was originally based in forestry and still is to some degree... but also tourism as well as a regional center for commerce, banking, and government services. We have much more in common with communities like Brainerd, Grand Rapids, and places like Ely than with Hallock or Ada.

At the same time, District 7 could easily engulf some of the outlying areas of St. Cloud to make up the balance. There is no reason to lump St. Cloud into the 6th district since St. Cloud is its own city with its own economic base.

Colin Peterson in the 7th district makes sense. He is a strong representative of agricultural and outdoorsmen issues. He is a good fit for both Hallock and Willmar despite the wide distance between the two. He is a terrible terrible fit for Virginia or Duluth... which are simply much more liberal than he.

Logged

"Above and beyond the question of how to grow the economy there is a legitimate concern about how to grow the quality of our lives."-Paul Wellstone

"The message was that you are so well trained to believe what you see... That you believed what you saw."

St. Cloud in the 6th now isn't horribly illogical (part of it is in Sherburne after all and there's no real clear line where the St. Cloud suburbs end and Twin Cities exurbs begin), but that's hardly true of McLeod in with the same seat as the middle Minneapolis suburbs like Eden Prairie. McLeod and Carver together kind of makes sense, but not in a Hennepin-dominated seat.

And there is really no logical reason to put Nicollet in with the exurbs, yet put Mankato and Rochester in with some remote farming counties in west central Minnesota they have virtually no connection to.

Based on information from this site, I have calculated the optimum re-distribution of Minnesota's population among its 8 districts. (Numbers rounded to nearest multiple of 5.)

1st District gains 18205 from the 2nd.2nd District loses 18205 to the 1st, 27140 to the 3rd, and 24180 to the 4th.3rd District loses 46510 to the 5th, and gains 27140 from the 2nd, and 32180 from the 6th.4th District gains 24180 from the 2nd, and 24180 from the 6th.5th District gains 46510 from the 3rd.6th District loses 32180 to the 3rd, 24180 to the 4th, 37480 to the 7th, and 2650 to the 8th.7th District gains 37480 from the 6th.8th District gains 2650 from the 6th.

Dude, no one is complaining about the map being shifted to reflect population adjustments. It's about how those adjustments are done. There is no reason to push MN-03 out to McLeod County. It can be easily kept within the metro to meet ideal population.

Only by pushing other districts out in McLeod or some other rural county. The Metro simply isn't 62.5% of the state. Choices to cross into rural areas had to be made.

Yes, and it can be limited to two districts like the current map. Not three like here.

Actually, it is the way that respects the most county lines. Otherwise, you are looking at three-way splits of counties.

One the whole, this map concentrates those crossing into the second district much more than the previous lines.

Uh, hardly. The second just expands out further into some odd areas.

Like, duh! If the decision is taken to concentrate the out-state areas attached into metro districts into the Second then, of course, the Second would have to expand out farther. The district expands South to a fairly straight line of counties. If you think that's "odd," then that speaks more about your judgment than the map.

I understand that is a decision you don't like. That doesn't make it gerrymandering.

I have a feeling that if McLeod was a Democratic county like Rice it probably wouldn't have been included.

Again, redistricting involves choices, and the Republicans took decisions that favored themselves, not the Democrats. Taking decision that favor the decision taker, and gerrymandering are two seperate concepts. If you wish to argue that a map that lacks all the classic signs of a gerrymander such as non-compact districts, numerous county/city/prcinct splits etc., etc., is still a "gerrymander" then you are going to have give some compelling reasons. So far, you have offered your bitches and moans about the map as if you opinions are gospel. They aren't.

Quote

Splitting Nicollet is a gerrymander because there is simply no other reason to do so.

But, there was at least two "reasons." First, it was entirely proper to concentrate all the rural areas attached to the metro into one district. It was on the border of the second, and the second expanded into rural areas. Some counties had to be added. The second reason is population equality.

But it doesn't do that. McLeod and southern Stearns aren't in the second. And Nicollet wouldn't work if Carver wasn't removed to shore up the third.

Again, the Republicans in the legislature took decisions that favored Republicans. Redistricting involves choices. Assuming the Republicans in the legislature weren't stupid, then, the map that they write, and "what works" will mesh.

The reality is that there are numerous possible reasonable configurations. The Republicans simply found a very reasonable configuration that is more favorable to them than other configurations. That simply isn't gerrymandering.

No one can seriously argue it has more in common with the southern exurbs, or that Mankato and southeast Minnesota have more in common with those remote western counties that it's pushed up to.

I have no doubt that it would be obvious that folks would be happiest if exactly 62.5% of the state was in the metro. Since it isn't, it is obvious that some rural folks are going to have to accept being placed into a metro-based district. Concentrating those rural folks in one district, instead of splitting them in half, to me, gives them a greater voice.

Nicollet isn't a rural county, it's a core part of metro Mankato. This split is for no reason beyond partisan ones.

Apperently, you wish to quibble. Very well. By "rural" I meant "out-state" or "non-metro." I figured you would be able to distinguish what I meant by "rural." Silly me. Alas, I will spend the time to type "non-metro" rather than "rural."

That said. Again, some "non-metro" areas had to be linked with some suburban areas. That is a mathematical necessity of the map. That you object that one such pairing doesn't benefit the Democrats isn't evidence of "gerrymandering." Gerrymandering is a stronger accusation with a higher burden of proof.

Choices had to be made. The folks in Minnesota elected Republican to make those choices, and their plan reflects their interests more than yours. That democracy in action. Live with it.

And elected a Governor who can veto this crap. Live with it.

I don't doubt the governor may very well veto the map. And, most assuredly his motivation for vetoing the bill will be that doing so is favorable to Democrats. What is ridicious are your attempts to equate writing maps you don't like with gerrymandering. I'm sure in one of the few states that Democrats control the process you will deny the decisions they took that favored themselves were necessarily gerrymandering.

It's pretty obvious why this is done, Nicollet isn't that Democratic of a county but is part of Walz's solid base. He won it by almost 20 points in 2010 despite winning by only 5 points district-wide. And the numbers Walz racked up in some of those precincts in it in 2006 and 2008 look like they belong in the inner Twin Cities. Do you seriously believe the Republicans didn't take this into account at all in removing it? It's certainly not impossible to keep in the district when drawing a map, actually it's more difficult to get a logical district with it removed (not that that district is logical.)

In the last redistricting, the Democrats bitched and moaned that it was unfair for there to be four out-state anchored districts, and four metro-based districts when the metro was 58% of the state. The courts agreed, and restructured the state's districts. Republican Representatives in Southern Minnesota were harmed.

No Republicans were harmed by the 2000 redistricting. Kennedy got an almost completely new district that he won in and would've continued to hold had he not been a complete idiot who thought he could win a Senate seat.

Having a nearly new district is disadvantageous. Your argument is akin to claiming, "While we did shoot at him, we missed, so it wasn't attempted murder."

So the court specifically drew the map to target Gutknecht?

Childish sarcasm doesn't alter the fact that you were refering to Kennedy, not Gutknecht.

Quote

Then why remove Rice? The western counties voted for him solidly. He wasn't harmed by the new district, it just wasn't enough help.

Gutknecht's district got about two points more Republican. He lost in 2006 because it was still a swing district, it was a horrible year for Republicans and he got detached and unpopular in the district, not because it was drawn anymore significantly Democratic. Just look at a map, it lost Democratic Rice County and some marginal swing counties for some heavily Republican counties out west. Gore lost the most Democratic county added to the district by almost 6 points.

Giant aside inasmuch as the topic was Kennedy.

Quote

There were three South Minnesota seats. Why are you only mentioning two?

Another blatant lie. There were not three southern Minnesota seats in the 90s map.

That's right, the districts in Minnesota have been restructured twice. South Minnesota had parts of three seats, then two seats, and now one. Each time a Republican member in the South was screwed over. That simply doesn't mean they were "gerrymandered" out of their seats.

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.

From what I've read, the two northern districts have always been drawn side by side and not across the state, because of communities of interests. The Republican map is a gerrymander, because that sort of formation doesn't appear to be logical other than for hyper-partisan reasons.

Logged

Creepy your fascination with me. Don't worry, this is just the penultimate.

First, if it doesn't matter, why did you claim it as proof of "gerrymandering?"

Tell the 30,000+ residents of rural McLeod County who would be stuck in a Hennepin County district that it "doesn't matter". There is no reason whatsoever to extend an inner-ring suburban district that far west. The Sixth can easily pick up the rural areas needed to balance the population between metro and rural districts, and doing so would be less controversial since the Sixth already contains rural areas anyway.

Again, you spin a circular web of sophistry. Of course, all the rural counties combined with a metro district could be concentrated in the Sixth. It is equally true that they can be concentrated in the Second. And, it is equally true that they could be split. That is just a redistricting choice. Claiming one choice that doesn't favor you is "gerrymandering" while the choice that does favor you is not, is simply hypocritical nonsense.

It just so happens that the non-metro areas to the North of the Metro are more Republican than the non-metro areas to the South. The effect of expanding the sixth is the removal of Republicans from the non-metro districts. The effect of expanding south is removing fewer Republicans from the non-metro areas. To argue that because a redistricting in your favor can be done, it should be done is purely circular.

Of course, removing non-metro Republicans from the outstates districts will draw less of an ire from partisan Democrats. Sure, the Republicans could avoid "controversy" by taking a meek, submissive attitude towards partisan Democrats. The Republicans in the legislature could have gone to DKE website and voted for the "7-1 Democratic gerrymander." If they did, the Democrats wouldn't have bitched and moaned about the map. Of course, they would have screwed themselves. The Republicans in the legislature took the decision to take decisions that favored them, and not the Democrats. Certainly, Democrats aren't going to like the decisions taken, just as Republicans wouldn't have liked some of the decision Democrats would have taken. Claiming any choice taken by Republicans that disfavoring you constitutes "gerrymandering" is just injecting aggressive incivility into political discourse.

No matter how many time reassert it, the reality is that there are valid reasons for expanding into Carver county: it is on the boundary between the Sixth and Second. Adding McLeod brings the Third up to population. Given the goal of concentrating out-state areas in the Second, the logical expansion for the Third is into the Second, and the logical county is the border county of Carver.

Quote

Quote

Second, the Northern split is completely fair. You don't like the fact that it is a restructuring of districts, but, then again, so was the last court map.

I don't like the fact that it splits the community of interest that is northwestern Minnesota, dividing it among districts dominated by areas it has nothing in common with, for purely partisan reasons.

Sure, I have no doubt you don't like the map. What you don't have is any valid reason to label it "gerrymandering."

The reality remains that upstate can be divided either North and South or East and West. The first option favors the Republicans, so they took it. That doesn't make it "gerrymandering."

Quote

This map seeks to deny northwestern Minnesota any representation in Congress.

"One man, one vote" means every region, area, county, city, etc., etc., has exactly the representation to which it is entitled.

Quote

The current configuration preserves the community of interest. Fergus Falls does not belong with Lindstrom, and Moorhead does not belong with Duluth.

In every conceivable maps there are pairs that don't make particular sense. In general, a county is apt to be more likely to be similar to a bordering county than a county farther away. But, lines must be drawn, even if it splits such pairs.

You have a bitch. You don't have a case for arguing "gerrymandering."

A sensible, fair map would preserve communities of interest.

No, that is a sophistry. A proper map will draw a reasonable balance between compactness, adherence to county/city lines/ and "communities of interest," whatever that means, racial composition and series of other factors. Judging these standards as a whole, the Republicans created an entirely reasonable map. You can't dispute that fact, so you are forced to dumb-down the standard of reasonable districts to "communities of interest." That is how intellectually weak your case is.

Quote

This map splits them for purely partisan reasons. You can't deny that, and you haven't even tried to. That is the very definition of gerrymandering, pure and simple.

No, it is you whom has redefined "gerrymandering." Redistricting is the process of splitting some areas from the rest of the state.

Since there is a sophistry in your formulation, I am forced to quibble. Yes, I don't deny that those taking the decisions took the decisions that favored them. I do most strongly "deny" that "purely partisan reasons" motivated any particular decision. The map shows an amazing respect for county lines, and compactness. Every decision taken was clearly congruent with compactness and respect for county lines. If "partisan poltics" were the sole motivation, the GOP could have whipped up a 5-3 map with little difficulty. They would have to gerrymander to do it, but, it could be done.

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.

I don't have a map, but the calculations in my post above is the way to re-map with as few changes as possible. There is simply no cause for a completely new configuration (particularly of districts 7 and 8 ) as proposed by the Republican map.

From what I've read, the two northern districts have always been drawn side by side and not across the state, because of communities of interests. The Republican map is a gerrymander, because that sort of formation doesn't appear to be logical other than for hyper-partisan reasons.

1) That isn't really true. For instance, today, there isn't two Northern districts. There is a Northeastern, Western, and Southern district. Before that, there was a Northeastern, Northwestern, Southwestern, and Southeastern districts. Before that, there was two Eastern districts to the North and South, a South Central district, a Southern Western/West-Central district, and a North Western/North Central district.

2) In the previous restructurings, the Southern districts were restructured to be East-West rather than North-South. I don't see how you can produce a compelling reason to claim what was good for the South is unacceptable for the North.

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.

Based on information from this site, I have calculated the optimum re-distribution of Minnesota's population among its 8 districts. (Numbers rounded to nearest multiple of 5.)

1st District gains 18205 from the 2nd.2nd District loses 18205 to the 1st, 27140 to the 3rd, and 24180 to the 4th.3rd District loses 46510 to the 5th, and gains 27140 from the 2nd, and 32180 from the 6th.4th District gains 24180 from the 2nd, and 24180 from the 6th.5th District gains 46510 from the 3rd.6th District loses 32180 to the 3rd, 24180 to the 4th, 37480 to the 7th, and 2650 to the 8th.7th District gains 37480 from the 6th.8th District gains 2650 from the 6th.

No, you have created a distribution that minimizes shifts from one district to another. Courts have rejected such arguments in favor of restructuring districts in the recent past.

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.

I don't have a map, but the calculations in my post above is the way to re-map with as few changes as possible. There is simply no cause for a completely new configuration (particularly of districts 7 and 8 ) as proposed by the Republican map.

The history of Minnesota redistricting has been a series of basic restructuring of the districts. Your opinion of whether, or not, there is "cause" for restructuring is just that: your opinion. The folks that were elected to take such decisions have a different opinion.

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.